10/19/05

Well, I said it before and I'll say it again -- Bush promised he could guarantee that this bimbo of his would always be biased against a woman's right to Choose her own reproductive decision regardless of the case and the Constitutional question.

"WASHINGTON, Oct. 18 - Harriet E. Miers, the Supreme Court nominee, disclosed on Tuesday a 1989 survey in which she supported banning abortion except to protect the life of the pregnant woman. The disclosure alarmed abortion rights supporters but failed to assuage the concerns of some conservative Republicans..."

"If Congress passes a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution that would prohibit abortion except when it was necessary to prohibit the death of the mother, would you actively support its ratification by the Texas Legislature?" the survey asked.

Ms. Miers answered yes. She told the group she would support a state ban on abortion, oppose public financing for abortions, participate in "pro-life" events and use her "influence as an elected official" to "promote the pro-life cause."

In other words, the way Sam Watterston does it on the Law & Ordure shows:

"Miss Miers, the question is this -- were you lying then or are you lying now?"

The White House was quick to emphasize that Ms. Miers's personal views should not be used to predict how she would rule on any case.

"The role of a judge is very different from the role of a candidate or a political officeholder," said Scott McClellan, a White House spokesman.

Ms. Miers, Mr. McClellan said, "recognizes that personal views and ideology and religion have no role to play when it comes to making decisions on the bench."

But -- dare I suggest the President of these United States is not making sense? -- He made his case BASED on her PERSONA -- who she IS and WHAT SHE BELIEVES -- AND insisted he had NO IDEA of what her views on abortion actually were.

So -- Mr.President/Mr. McLellan (the sock puppet's sock puppet):the question is:"Were you lying then -- or are you lying now?"